A system where:
- There are no classes. Characters can choose "talents" from one of three talent trees: Might, Finesse, and Sorcery.
- There are racial talent trees available only to characters of those races. Thus, characters of different races that specialize in similar roles are going to feel distinct from one another.
- "Talents" are purchased with experience.
- Each tree boasts a number of offensive talents which modify a character's attack action (giving them something interesting to do each round aside from dealing damage). Something similar to D&D 4th edition's powers (though, I despise daily powers; encounter powers maybe, but most ought to be at-will).
- There's no division of "arcane" and "divine" magic.
- Spellcasters can actually cast spells... all day! "Vancian Magic" must die. In a fire. Forever.
- There's no "AC." Rather, characters have an "Evasion" stat (allowing them to dodge attacks) and an "Armor" stat (which reduces damage taken).
- Weapons are classified by size and type. Each weapon of the same general size and type deal equal damage. For example: there would be no difference between a longsword, katana, and falcata.
- Weapons have features which set them apart from one another. For example: all swords have a keen effect (causing them to deal critical damage more often), whilst all axes penetrate armor (light, one-handed, and two-handed axes bypass varying amounts of armor; the heavier the weapon, the more armor they bypass).
- Armor is classified by weight (light or heavy). All armor of similar type provide an equal armor rating (and inhibit movement equally). For example: there would be no difference between leather armor, studded leather armor, and chain shirts. Similarly, shields are classified by weight (light or heavy).
- Magic items are not needed by characters to remain competent. Rather, magic items are often rare and/or unique.
No one game is perfect... this isn't to be contrary to the thread topic, but rather that I enjoy conflicting concepts in games, so I play different ones.
Burning Empires would be the proto-game for one of my ideals. It's flaw is that the system is too intricately wound around itself. Something similar though, where a sci-fi game that encompasses personal conflict with armies and navies vying for planetary control. It shouldn't be a board game, but rather tell the story of what happens, while still feeling strategic. A simpler system, like d6 star wars, adapted to mimic burning empires.
The game I already have and love is Mythender. It is one of my ideal games. The players are mythenders, who go around... ending myths. Of all the games I have played, it is the one most likely to produce epic battles similar to the final battle of The Avengers. The massive scale of destruction, the back and forth of a hard fight and ever escalating danger. And it requires the most dice of any game I've ever played.
I'm currently hammering out my own RPG system that focuses on giving GMs and players a lot of leeway for creating the stories and characters they envision with as little intrusion as possible from the rules. The basic concept is that story and character creation is handled the same way a writer approaches story and character creation. They create what is needed to have a vivid and compelling story populated by interesting and memorable characters. It's something I've wanted for a while, so I figured I'd go ahead and make it myself instead for waiting for someone else to do it. I've found an artist, and will finally have the beta finished before too long. Fathering a little baby girl, school, and work has really stretched out my original timeline.
I think it would be something in the crossroads between Pathfinder, 7th Sea, and Ars Magica 5e.
I have absolutely no idea how would that work out, but those three are my favourite systems and each has some features I would love to see together.
I have to go with Detect Magic's answer, with only a couple of exceptions.
Yeah, I think I'd have to say the same.
No one game is perfect...
EverQuest RPG is :).